FirParkCornerExile

Devils advocate here. Would you accept it if it cost the investment team £2 million to buy but generate additional £1/£2 million a year revenue excluding player sales.

If we could why have we not done it before? This is the WS big problem , they apparently can come up with something better now, but why has it taken so long? what have they been doing for years, what investment opportunities have they identified or been working on all the time we've been a fan owned club.

or not as the case may be. An automatic assumption that saying Yes will result in the club going out of business is nonsense and the assumption that staying with the WS will never see us like ICT is also nonsense. There are no certainties and never will be and that's why its such a difficult choice for many.

A reasonable response.

Well yes that is correct but that's only the money to acquire the club. The expectation is their business model will generate far more cash than we currently generate. Whether that happens or not who knows, but the £2 million is the purchase price not the expected cash generation, and that's the problem. Neither the Well Society or Investment team can tell us what they will generate. If the new investors could generate serious money it could be worth it. However that cannot be guaranteed. The WS are unlikely to come up with anything that generates serious money or they'd have done it before now surely. Some fans will be happy at that as they see it as no risk plodding along. You pay your money you takes your choice.

I really want to see what the WS are offering.

** info means original post answered.

The Well Society have £750,000 and in 6 years time they can buy back for £650,000, so can they not take back control at that point. Apologies I've not looked in detail yet.

I'm sorry but raffles, tombola's and WS quiz nights don't do it for me as our fund raising opportunities. If they have something thats better I'll happily reject. If they dont I'll consider the investment offer. As long as the assets of the club are protected (ie, the ground) I'm open to be convinced.

That's my big bug bear , surely to recommend rejection the Well society should have a detailed counter 6 year vision.

thats exactly it , hes no better than the day he arrived and could never show any consistency.

oh man I hope so....lol

Bevis was always a fuck up waiting to happen. Contrary to reports we didn't offer him a contract which restores some of my faith in our recruitment.

Fees are scheduled to be paid by dates , so not necessary to have the money in the bank at the time the transaction is agreed. St Pauli apparently interested in Bair

the fee being quoted , admittedly on pie and bovril, is £100,000 if we've paid that one of the two I mentioned is offski.

If we've paid a fee for him and agreed one St Mirren couldnt I suspect either Bair or Miller are off or both. We cant normally afford any fees.

I could be persuaded, if not totally convinced, to keep some Id rather see gone but Mugabi just isnt one of them.

SOD is not our worst player by any means , but if Mugabi resigns I will feel like giving up.

I know others will disagree but I think he flatters to deceive and spends more time on his arse than anything else. Before he got injured he wasnt even nuisance value.

I don't know why people are upset. He was well down the pecking order of absolute dross last season. Think he will do OK for us.

I don't propose to write copious amounts about it here but there is plenty online about contact extensions and timelines and trigger points. The club certainly does have the ability to opt out of the extension however there are certain triggers and timelines they must adhere to after which the contact extends and the club wouldnt have such scope.

My very point from the start. if the coaching budget had seen a reduction i dont have an issue. I would if the coaching budget was being increased to create a position for him.

options are a two way agreement. Just because there was an option it doesnt the player has the final decision its a two way agreement.

I cant believe you cant see this. If we had budgeted for Obika for another year that a wage is from the playing budget. If we then decide to pay him as a coach we still have the same outgoings if no one has left the coaching staff. We have merely reduced the playing budget and increased the coaching budget. We could have called it quits not taken the one year option and we could have let him go and kept his wage in the playing budget.

Whether he had another option of a player is immaterial if we've swapped his playing wage for a coaching wage and no one has come of the coaching staff we've in essence wasted a wage that could have gone to the playing budget.